Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad vs Union of India & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

18 March 2020

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2012

Result

Dismissed

Bench

S.A. Bobde, Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Surya Kant

Citation

[2020] 4 S.C.R. 966 : 2020 INSC 305

Headnote

Army Act, 1950:

s. 69 – Civil Offence of murder – Court martial – Accused found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – Conviction and sentence affirmed by Armed Forces Tribunal – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Conviction is affirmed – However, in the peculiar facts of the case, sentence of life imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone i.e. period of more than 14 years.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 433-A – Applicability of – Held: s. 433-A is applicable to a case tried for offence u/s. 69 of Army Act, 1950.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Court Martial as confirmed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) thereby, holding, that the appellant was liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 for committing a civil offence of murder. [Para 4] [969-C]

2.1 Section 433-A of Cr.P.C would also be applicable to a case tried for offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 and a person who has been imposed with a life sentence cannot be released unless he has actually served 14 years’ of imprisonment, without taking into consideration the remissions earned by him in jail. [Para 7] [970-A-B]

Union of India and others v. Sadha Singh (1999) 8 SCC 375 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 28 – relied on.

2.2. The appellant was posted in Kashmir area, at a time when the State was undergoing the threat of terrorism at its peak. The appellant, after the incident, immediately came out of the tent, surrendered himself, and gave an explanation that he had fired the rifle under a delusion that there was a terrorist attack. The conduct and behaviour of the appellant in the jail, as could be seen from the Certificate issued by the Superintendent, District Jail, has been excellent. The appellant has actually served the sentence of 16 years and 6 months as on 6.1.2020. If the benefit of remission is given to him, the period would come to 20 years and 5 months. As such, he has served the sentence for a period of more than 14 years and as such, the bar of Section 433-A Cr.P.C. would also not be applicable. [Para 9] [970-D-E]

2.3 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence already served by the appellant is much more than proportionate to the offence proved against him. [Para 10] [970-F]

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “AFT”) in T.A.No.284 of 2011 whereby, the appeal of the present appellant against the order of Court Martial dated 21.08.2004 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the present matter are as follows: The present appellant was enrolled in Signals Corps and was posted to HQ & Radar Battery of 20 Surveillance and target acquisition regiment since 01.10.2002. The appellant was deployed at Peer Badeshwar Radar

View Subscription Plans →